By MIKE CORN

mcorn@dailynews.net

Turning aside two recommendations for public censure, the Kansas Supreme Court suspended WaKeeney attorney David Harding from practicing law for 90 days.

Both disciplinary administrator Stan Hazlett and the disciplinary board that heard the case recommended public censure.

The suspension came a day after Harding learned his state retirement benefits were being restored.

While Harding expressed disappointment with the court's decision Friday, he said he was pleased his retirement benefits had been reinstated by the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System.

Harding declined further comment on his suspension on the advice of his lawyer, John Ambrosio, Topeka.

The KPERS eligibility question was at the heart of a controversy that resulted in the calling of an inquisition and the filing of an ethics complaint against Harding.

The inquisition came about after Harding contacted Ellis County Attorney Tom Drees, who was appointed a special prosecutor. In that capacity, Drees convened an inquisition to look into the possibility of wrongdoing on the part of former and current WaKeeney officials.

After almost two years, the investigation was halted abruptly by Drees. No charges were filed against either former WaKeeney City Council members Charlene Neish or Kenny Deutscher or Police Chief Terry Eberle.

"The issues and concerns raised have been investigated," Drees said in a statement issued in June.

"Remedial actions have been taken at the city and county level. In the interest of justice, it is time to conclude this investigation. No further action will be taken," Drees said.

He declined to elaborate.

The ethics complaint that eventually was heard by the Kansas Supreme Court first was filed in late 2008, with a hearing in May of last year in Topeka.

There, Hazlett recommended Harding be censured. A hearing board ultimately made the same recommendation.

While the violations normally would have resulted in a 90-day suspension, the board found mitigating factors prompted a unanimous agreement to recommend suspension.

The court, however, deemed otherwise.

"We are not convinced that the mitigating circumstances warrant published censure where the activity of respondent calls for suspension from the practice of law," the court said in its decision. "We are concerned about the harm done, the respondent's disclosure of confidential information, and the damage caused to the reputations of some of the city officials.

"We may not ignore respondent's angry and selfish response. A minority of the court would impose a greater discipline."

The 90-day suspension was effective immediately.